Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Epigonian aesthetics

Please, Anepigone, please don't do this to graphs. Yes, the numbers are there, but visual impressions count, and your graph, with the bottom at 40%, gives the misleading impression that the Mohammedans' support is only half of even blacks' (never mind that all this is self-reported and not revealed-preference) when really the ratio of the largest to the smallest bar is less than two. It's bad enough that everyone else does this with the small print, but Carlylean veracity is the only way for us.

Here is the graph he's referring to:

The sentiment is well received. The main reason it was presented as such in this particular case is because the questions considered were dichotomous ones without "don't know", "no opinion", etc as possible responses. To have visually expressed this across a fully displayed y-axis would've looked like this:

The numbers are all plainly included so it's not much of a bait-and-switch. If the worry is that it'll leave a skewed impression for those who don't give it more than a glance, well, I'm not writing in a scientific publication and I do have a subjective position on just about everything that is posted on.

That it's a coin toss as to whether or not a Muslim living in America thinks controversial speakers should be permitted to speak in public and that 1-in-3 NAMs believes they should be precluded from doing so is quite jolting for a lot of people, and my intention is to design the graphic accordingly.

While the GSS just asks the question straight up, free speech means different things to different people.

Liberal whites and Jews think of free speech as flag burning, degeneracy, profanity laws, etc. If the GSS were to throw in as a caveat that this included the right for evil racist white men to be racist on the internet, the numbers would be different. They don't think of that as free speech. The only liberal organization who may defend those racists would be the ACLU and the amount of anger that they spark for defending a shitlord's right to call a spade a spade keeps growing to the point where they will probably abandon free speech that doesn't push for more degeneracy. In other words, ACLU would rather defend NAMBLA than AmRen.

The moderate and conservative whites mean what they say. So they support it less because they are more likely to want to restrict free speech for outfits like NAMBLA and unfortunately that likely extends to right wing groups as well. These guys just want to zonk out on handegg on the weekends and don't want to think much about politics outside of what Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity has to say on issues. These people aren't our allies...yet but give it time and they will come around. Tucker Carlson is now talking demographic replacement on his show, something that would be utterly unthinkable. The overton window continues to slide towards the right, we'll turn the suburbanites into shitlords yet.

Yes, phrasing is important. This doesn't conclusively show that in an absolute, real-world sense SWPLs and Jews are more tolerant of free speech than self-identified white moderates and conservatives, but it does suggest that tolerance of speech they disagree with is something SWPLs and Jews pride themselves on at least in an abstract sense. Consequently, it's a good thing to try and appeal to them with rhetorically.

I think that a lot of alt-right types project their own type of right-wing politics onto other right-wingers.

I suspect that the fundie Christians far outnumber the alt-right, and the fundie Christians and other mainstream right wingers are the ones who kinda behave like Muslims if you insult their savior or religion.

Maybe the results would be different if you separated "fundies" from "Richard Spencer followers".

the ones who kinda behave like Muslims if you insult their savior or religion.

kinda behaveKinda BehaveKINDA BEHAVE?***triggering intensifies***

To be fair though, you're right. It would be interesting to see what the specific objection is, or if "free speech" is an avatar for "desecrating Christian icons, having flaming gay sex parades, and publishing porn." But this less a normie vs. Alt-Right thing and more a TradCon vs nuanced-Classical Liberalism thing. For non-woke Christian conservatives (and I know a lot), becoming more politically self-consistent means becoming more classically liberal (libertarian)...aka, more cucked.